The fear of social stigma experienced by men: a barrier to male involvement in antenatal care in Misungwi District, rural Tanzania

Scoping review of sexual and reproductive healthcare for men in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region: a handful of paradoxes?

Background

No study appraised the knowledge gaps and factors impacting men’s sexual and reproductive health (SRH) in MENA (Middle East and North Africa). The current scoping review undertook this task.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Web of Science (WoS) electronic databases for original articles on men’s SRH published from MENA. Data was extracted from the selected articles and mapped out employing the WHO framework for operationalising SRH. Analyses and data synthesis identified the factors impacting on men’s experiences of and access to SRH.

Results

A total of 98 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The majority of studies focused on HIV and other sexually transmissible infections (67%); followed by comprehensive education and information (10%); contraception counselling/provision (9%); sexual function and psychosexual counselling (5%); fertility care (8%); and gender-based violence prevention, support/care (1%). There were no studies on antenatal/intrapartum/postnatal care and on safe abortion care (0% for both). Conceptually, there was lack of knowledge of the different domains of men’s SRH, with negative attitudes, and many misconceptions; as well as a deficiency of health system policies, strategies and interventions for SRH.

Conclusion

Men’s SRH is not sufficiently prioritized. We observed five ‘paradoxes’: strong focus on HIV/AIDS, when MENA has low prevalence of HIV; weak focus on both fertility and sexual dysfunctions, despite their high prevalence in MENA; no publications on men’s involvement in sexual gender-based violence, despite its frequency across MENA; no studies of men’s involvement in antenatal/intrapartum/postnatal care, despite the international literature valuing such involvement; and, many studies identifying lack of SRH knowledge, but no publications on policies and strategies addressing such shortcoming. These ‘mismatches’ suggest the necessity for efforts to enhance the education of the general population and healthcare workers, as well as improvements across MENA health systems, with future research examining their effects on men’s SRH.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14716-2.

Prevalence and barriers to male involvement in antenatal care in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: A facility-based mixed-methods study

Background

Men have traditionally not been fully involved in reproductive health care of their partners, and yet, they play a crucial role in family decision-making and therefore crucial key players in preventing poor pregnancy outcomes. This study aimed to assess prevalence and determinants of male participation in maternal health care and explore male partners’ perspective of their involvement in antenatal care at an urban tertiary referral facility.

Methods

A mixed-methods study was conducted from October 2018 to January 2019 at Muhimbili National Hospital. A cross-sectional survey of 428 nursing mothers and two focus group discussions of male partners (n = 7 and n = 11) of women attending antenatal clinic and nursing mothers in the post-natal ward were performed. Using SPSS Ver. 23 (IBM, Chicago, IL), frequency distribution tables summarized demographic data and categories of male partners’ involvement in antenatal care. Focus group discussions included male partners of age from 24 to 55 years at their first to fifth experience of pregnancy and childbirth. Interviews were audio-recorded, and then transcribed and coded. Thematic analysis was applied.

Results

The prevalence of male involvement in antenatal care was 69%. More than two-thirds of nursing mothers received physical, psychological and financial support from partners (76%) and attended four or more antenatal visits (85%). Five themes of male perspective of their involvement in antenatal care were generated, including: a) cultural norms and gender roles, b) ignorance of reproductive health service, c) factors outside their control, d) couple interaction and conflicts, and e) institutional obstacles.

Conclusion

The prevalence of male partners’ involvement in antenatal care was relatively high. Men’s involvement in antenatal care depended on access to antenatal care education, standards of structure and process of antenatal service and how well their role was defined in the maternal health care system. Interactions and practice in society, employment sector and government health system should complement strategies to promote men’s involvement in maternal health.